Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ckgp!thomas
From: thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Michael Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: IF IT DOES NOT PASS TT IT IS NOT INTELLIGENT????
Message-ID: <610@ckgp.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jun 91 20:19:44 GMT
References: <9106230258.AA12009@lilac.berkeley.edu>
Organization: CKGP Assoc. Inc. Birmingham, MI
Lines: 88

In article <9106230258.AA12009@lilac.berkeley.edu>, ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) writes:
> >Stephen Smoliar writes, on the subject of Turing's orignal paper,
> > > Unless I am mistaken,
> > > Turing uses his opening paragraphs to argue that it is a waste of time
> > > to consider a question as naive as "Can a machine think?"
> 
>  1.  Supposedly reputable scholars (such as John Searle) who
>  should know better but are too busy enhancing their reputations
>  by further elaborating upon arguments whose foundations sit on
>  this fundamental misunderstanding of the original text.
> 
>  2.  Students and "curious observers" who seem more inclined to
>  soak up second-hand accounts from folks like Searle than to set
>  aside the couple of hours it takes to read what Turing REALLY
>  had to say.
> 
>Michael Thomas seems to be our resident representative of the second category.

  Which category do you fit in...?  8^)

>It IS a waste of time to argue about silly words like "think" and
>"intelligence" when you could be spending your time building machines that

  I agree that it is a waste of time to ARGUE about the definitions
  of words, that we know we will not agree on, BUT it I was responeding to
  your mention of them. first "Can a machine think?" I was asking if
  you felt he ment that it was not possible or was possible for a 
  machine to think? Also my reference to the time at which this took
  place, computers today are alot different -- are they not? The view
  on the matter at that time is not compatible with current/future technology
  -- is it? 

>>I think I am missing something. If it a box could "walk, talk and chew
>>gum", how different would it appear if it could only "imitate" said
>>behaviour?
  
  There is a difference between actually doing something and imitating it.
  An airplane does not imitate the flight of a bird, because it wouldn't
  work! (They've tried it...way back when...) An airplane actually flies
  using its own means and instead of imitate it emulates, and hence has
  surpassed the model.(model = original) The same holds true for thought.
  You think and someday computers will emulate thought. It will not
  occur the way that you create thought, but will use its own means... 

>Shame on you, Gordon!  You ARE missing something!  You have just revealed that
>YOU have not read Turing either!  Turing's Imitation Game is well-defined in an
  [The imitation game was here long before Turing...]
>(intentionally) relatively narrow context.  That context does NOT involve
>walking, talking, or chewing gum.  It involves nothing more than exchanges
>of text through the objective medium of the logical equivalent of a dumb
>terminal.  This narrow context is very important to Turing's argument for
>exactly the reason I stated above:  The task is simple enough that you can
>decide whether or not you have succeeded without getting into the deep waters
>of philosophy.

  Narrow Context, hummm... I think you are missing something, yes Turing
  has the test set up the way that you discribe, yes the test only involves
  "nothing more the exchanges of text through the objective medium" was
  all of this really the point of our conversation before. My response
  was directed more directly at how the test was not a complete and
  comprehensive test for AI (which is different than imitation). I was
  merely stating my opinion that nothing (not even a person would be
  able to pass the test). If you put two people in the rooms and the person
  at the terminal was told to tell which is a person and which is a computer
  the person would always pick one of the people as the computer...
  The other problem was that in the Party game, (looking for a man or woman)
  the objective was to trick the experimenter so that they would pick
  the wrong person... this should not be the objective of a test to deturmine
  (What ever you wish to say Turing was trying to deturmine!)

>Searle's big mistake, however, is that he wants to
>accuse Turing and later members of the artificial intelligence community
>of assuming that "winning" the Imitation Game is equivalent exhibiting thought.

  Please tell me what accomplish by "winning" the Imitation Game? 
  (I do not believe that the answer is exhibiting thought!)

>Searle, simply because Minsky's understanding of both the letter and the
>spirit of Turing surpasses Searle's on every count.

  Marvin Minsky: sinse you aparently hold surpreme knowledge, please 
  tell us the goal of Turing's Test? Please also tell me if on an
  agent machine you would first (or ever!) put it to the test? (TT)

-- 
Thank you,
Michael Thomas
(..uunet!ckgp!thomas)